Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Delta Partners Group


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete.  MBisanz  talk 20:36, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Delta Partners Group

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Nothing outstanding about this particular organization to have a Wikipedia article about it. All the references are usual announcements about product launches, funding rounds etc. Tushi  Talk To Me  08:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I have added some new references after the article was nominated for deletion, so I would appreciate it if the deletion proposal were to be reassessed. In addition, here a various reasons as to why I believe the article should stay where it is.

As the article has been put forward for deletion due to an alleged lack of notability, the following is my argument that aims to demonstrate the notability of this company.

The Golden Rule in en.wiki says “Articles generally require significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the topic.” Allow me to address each point individually.

Significant coverage: the article holds 41 references - ultimately, enough to support the entire text. It’s true, that some of those references are “usual announcements about product launches, funding rounds, etc”, however they confirm the facts, and also contain much more in-depth content within the articles, which is the company’s principal intention of these publications.

Reliable sources: All of the sources I have provided are reliable sources, and I urge you to check for yourself. The article contains references to important and reliable sources such as the Wall Street Journal, Forbes, Bloomberg, La Vanguardia, Ecommerce News, Expansión, and Telecom Paper to name just few. With such powerful media publications like these, I see no reason as to why this point would be an issue for the article.

Independent of the topic – the same argument that I have made in the previous point: the 41 references I have provided to back up the information belong to completely independent publications and have nothing to do with the company, therefore I don’t see an issue as to why this point would be a cause for concern.

As the article is complying with Wikipedia’s Golden Rule, there should be no reason whatsoever for the article to be removed from the site. However, I will continue by providing you with more arguments to back up Delta Partners’ notability.

Following the notability criteria, I have shown that the article meets all of the “General Notability Guideline” by providing with “Significant coverage, Reliable, sources, independent of the subject, Presumed.” If any of the referenced material doesn’t adhere to the guidelines, could you please indicate as to which ones they are specifically.

In addition, regarding the Notability article for Organizations and Companies, I understand that the “Depth of Coverage” point could be a big issue, however the majority of the references ARE NOT the types indicated: Although the simple fact of being a publicly traded corporation is not an inherent characteristic of notability, the article itself indicates that “Editors coming across an article without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion”. In this case, the references are widely listed, and the company actually belongs to the Dubai international Financial Center (DIFC) - the public body of the United Arab Emirates (Dubai) that manages the capital markets and stock exchange.
 * sources that simply report meeting times, shopping hours or event schedules,
 * the publications of telephone numbers, addresses, and directions in business directories,
 * inclusion in lists of similar organizations,
 * the season schedule or final score from sporting events,
 * routine communiqués announcing such matters as the hiring or departure of personnel,
 * brief announcements of mergers or sales of part of the business,
 * simple statements that a product line is being sold, changed, or discontinued,
 * routine notices of facility openings or closings (e.g., closure for a holiday or the end of the regular season),
 * routine notices of the opening or closing of local branches, franchises, or shops,
 * routine restaurant reviews,
 * quotations from an organization's personnel as story sources, or
 * passing mention, such as identifying a quoted person as working for an organization.

For all reasons mentioned above, I strongly believe that the content of this article is notable enough and backed up by the sufficient reliable and prominent sources required, that there is no reason for it to be removed from the site.

Personally – and without this being a part of the argument – I think if this article does get deleted, then half (?) of the articles on the site should also receive the same treatment :) Thank you for reading up until this point.

Regards, --Nawiarra44 (talk) 17:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 21:54, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:48, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. As I analyze the sources, I see only mentions of investments, and similar mere notices. And the article is considerably prootional as well. DGG ( talk ) 04:38, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- insufficient RS coverage to meet GNG and CORPDEPTH. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:56, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment -- searches only bring up trivial mentions; there's also possibility of COI editing. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:02, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as entirely PR and the article basically summarizes it to exactly that. SwisterTwister   talk  06:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.